You gotta be kidding me

That's no surprise to me...somebody underneath him made a judgement call that the sale was no big deal and failed to brief him on it.  Remember all the stuff that President Reagan "did not recall"?  This stuff happens all the time...in both Democrat and Republican administrations and usually someone's head ends up rolling as a result.

The idea of a company from an Arabic state, even UAE, running US ports concerns me, but I haven't seen the security plan yet, so I'm not quite ready to make a judgement call on this one...even though everyone has already been tried and convicted in the media...

Another stake in the heart of the blood suckers.  The only issue I have with this is Bush threatening to veto any effort to set up a review process.  I think a little extra caution is a good idea.  It seems like Bush is a master at looking like an a*s.  Doesn’t he recognize that the general public will probably agree that a little extra oversight on this deal is a good thing?  Oh well, I’m glad he’s looking like an arse.   

WOW... These companies actually are in charge of container inspections? So what happened to Coast Guard and Homeland Security inspections? Since we now check about 5% of the boxes would this really change anything?

I wonder if this company is going to have a corporate board of everything but AMERICANS? Then I am sure the long shoreman will just pack up and be replaced by people from Saudi, NOT!

This is a political move... FEAR THE ARABS... REMEMBER JULY 4th? I think I saw a few of them with sparklers..... FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!!! A bottle of PEE in NYC required a shutdown of the subway and 200 agents to contain and remove.. FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!

as a survivor on 9/11 and with enough relatives oversees under daily threat of being killed because of who they are and where they live, yes, fear the arabs.

[quote=7GOD63]

WOW... These companies actually are in charge of container inspections? So what happened to Coast Guard and Homeland Security inspections? Since we now check about 5% of the boxes would this really change anything?

I wonder if this company is going to have a corporate board of everything but AMERICANS? Then I am sure the long shoreman will just pack up and be replaced by people from Saudi, NOT!

This is a political move... FEAR THE ARABS... REMEMBER JULY 4th? I think I saw a few of them with sparklers..... FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!!! A bottle of PEE in NYC required a shutdown of the subway and 200 agents to contain and remove.. FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!

[/quote]

Nah, not fear the Arabs.......fear rubber stamping on issues of homeland security, that's all.  Not that preventing foriegn (Arab) companies from doing business is is a good idea, let's just use a little extra caution when contracting them to do our port security. 

Man this sites getting political.

7G - I hate to continue going back and forth but you need to look into this some more.  You basically answered the security concern with your comments. Only about 5% of sea port containers are inspected as it is so what changes when UAE runs the port and the coast guard continues security?  Nothing basically, except now the UAE employees see where the weak spots are in the security plan, have access to the plan, routines, what is and isn't typically inspected, where the lapses are etc.  All it takes is one employee to help facilitate bad junk from getting in.  With easier access now as a result of this deal, it makes it just that more likely to occur. 

This proves how Bush talks out of both sides as well.  He preaches about the need to data mine on all citizens and "suspected" terrorists, the need we had to remove Saddam so that the mushroom cloud doesn't hit our soil and he's determined to see these ports handed over to a country who's ties to terror are suspect at best, a country that doesn't recognize Israel, that believes the Taliban is the legitimate government of Afghanistan....Uh!!!!!!!!!!  Are we or aren't we fighting a war on terror?  Line up locksteppers, another example of hypocritical ideology at play!

Amen to that csmelnix

Praise the lord…

very creative.

For crying out loud....they aren't "buying" the ports, they won't be in charge of security, it has nothing to do with the number of containers were do or don’t inspect, any risk of some "furiner" telling the terrorists where to hit us at the port is ALREADY in place as this is a sale of a foreign port management company to ANOTHER foreign port management company.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You want to make the argument that post 9/11 we should have only US management companies at US ports, fine, find one. If your only point is you didn’t mind that group of foreigners managing part of the ports, but you object to this group of foreigners (all the employees are probably US citizens anyway) managing the ports, by all mean, feel free to flaunt your racism.    

Simple minds for simple folks - so by all means just make it easier.

Michael Chertoff said Homeland Security checked this deal out and all is OK. That’s good enough for me. I feel safer already.

[quote=csmelnix]Simple minds for simple folks - so by all means just make it easier.[/quote]

"Simple" is right, all this demagoguery.

And it's "easier" how? Because all possible UAE company employees can't be trusted but all possible <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />UK employees can? Say, remind me again where Richard Reid was from? To hear the critics talk UAE citizens would be inspecting loads and pulling security duty at every US port.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Look, if we could find a way to seal off port management companies to a handful of US firms or maybe even governmental bodies like Port Authorities, I'd be willing to consider it. The fact is we can't, and we can't say, in essence, "You can work with us on the GWOT but we don’t want anything else to do with you Arab types…”

Oh, and that big, nifty country in Asia, the one we do all the trade with, but has nukes pointed at us. I don’t recall this outrage when they took over the port in Long Beach….

[quote=tjc45]Michael Chertoff said Homeland Security checked this deal out and all is OK. That's good enough for me. I feel safer already.[/quote]

OTOH, a Marine four star General approved of it too.....

You don’t recall the outrage cuz this post wasn’t open. 
Easier because of what I said already on my earlier post.  Does it really take a rocket science to figure out that one employee with ties to “terr” as your boy says, who can simply observe how things are done and where the lapses are and aren’t turns to relay the info and plan to get some “junk” in through the ports is not good.  Granted, nothing is in place now to prevent that one employee and I am not happy with ports being owned by any outside firm; but given UAEs ties, history, position on terror and terrorist sponsors, I will take the Chinese and British firms over UAE any day.

Like I said earlier - toe the line ideology hypocrisy coming through...

toe the line soldier! 

[quote=mikebutler222]

For crying out loud....they aren't "buying" the ports, they won't be in charge of security, it has nothing to do with the number of containers were do or don’t inspect, any risk of some "furiner" telling the terrorists where to hit us at the port is ALREADY in place as this is a sale of a foreign port management company to ANOTHER foreign port management company.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You want to make the argument that post 9/11 we should have only US management companies at US ports, fine, find one. If your only point is you didn’t mind that group of foreigners managing part of the ports, but you object to this group of foreigners (all the employees are probably US citizens anyway) managing the ports, by all mean, feel free to flaunt your racism.    

[/quote]

Looks like we got a Bush drone on our hands.  MikeB it certainly sounds like you march to the beat of your leader, for better or worse.  Sorry it had to be George W. Bush.  Man what a bummer.

[quote=csmelnix]

Like I said earlier - toe the line ideology hypocrisy coming through...

toe the line soldier! 

[/quote]

Spoting hypocracy where there is none. Continue the mindless assault...

Spell out the hypocrisy:

1.  Neocons and GW are all for going into Iraq on outdated, cherry picked, questionable intelligence.  Ok with invading a country with minimal ties to "terr", zero involvement in 9/11, no ties to AL Qada.

2.  Iraq reasons behind the invasion become evidently false, yet they all continue to brag about the need to remove the menance and bring democracy to the mideast.

3.  Here's the hypocrisy:  You can be ok with invading a foreign nation on the info listed above BUT shrug shoulders when it hits your own border.  UAE at a minimum has similiar circumstances in supporting state sponsor terror regimes/countries as Iraq pre invasion.  They actually provided 2 9/11 terrorists (granted not state sponsored), they believe the Taliban is the legit gov't of Afghanistan, refuse to accept Israel's right to exist, facilitate the funding or transfer there of to AL Qada.  Facilitate the transfer of Nuke technology to terrorist nations.  Have put up many bars to help us fight terror in the area.

You are OK with this nation running port operations in our homeland?  Would you be ok with Iran or Syria running them or how about Iraq under Hussein?  After all, they're only Arab nations too and we don't want to be rascists here. 

[quote=dude][quote=mikebutler222]

For crying out loud....they aren't "buying" the ports, they won't be in charge of security, it has nothing to do with the number of containers were do or don’t inspect, any risk of some "furiner" telling the terrorists where to hit us at the port is ALREADY in place as this is a sale of a foreign port management company to ANOTHER foreign port management company.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You want to make the argument that post 9/11 we should have only US management companies at US ports, fine, find one. If your only point is you didn’t mind that group of foreigners managing part of the ports, but you object to this group of foreigners (all the employees are probably US citizens anyway) managing the ports, by all mean, feel free to flaunt your racism.    

[/quote]

Looks like we got a Bush drone on our hands.  MikeB it certainly sounds like you march to the beat of your leader, for better or worse.  Sorry it had to be George W. Bush.  Man what a bummer.

[/quote]

Well, if you can't discuss facts, dude, you can always write a post void of thoughtful content.....

Seriously, what is your point here? A UK company is OK with you, a Chinese company is OK with you, but any company from the Arab world isn't?

MikeB, are you employed by the Bush administration or something? Your

unwavering support is admirable but even many Republican congressmen

are calling for a little more investigation.



Didn’t the UAE refuse to release banking records for bin Laden after 9/11?

Wasn’t an attempt to take out bin Laden by Clinton abandoned because a

Prince from the UAE on a hunting trip with bin Laden? (bin Laden was

considered our public enemy #1 even back then) Weren’t two of the 9/11

hijackers actually from the UAE?



I mean come on, don’t you agree we should feel a little uncomfortable with

the situation?

[quote=csmelnix]Easier because of what I said already on my earlier post.  Does it really take a rocket science to figure out that one employee with ties to "terr" as your boy says, who can simply observe how things are done and where the lapses are ...[/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

And you figure that couldn't be done in ports owned by <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />UK or Chinese companies? BTW, still working on my Richard Reid question?

BTW, it’s pretty funny to hear a guy arguing on the side of the “all them there Arabs is terrorists” make fun of “terr”…

[quote=csmelnix]

 Granted, nothing is in place now to prevent that one employee and I am not happy with ports being owned by any outside firm; ..

[/quote]

Ahhhhh, the truth is spoken... then why not admit nothing of consequence will change? Why not tell the truth about how 99.99% of this uproar is demagoguery? Some of our recent threats have been from those we least suspect. “Normal” folks like the European woman suicide bomber in Iraq, Reid, and the crew in Ohio. There’s nothing I know of to keep those people from taking any sort of job that allows them to monitor port security operations, whether the sale goes through or not.

BTW, the ports aren’t “owned” by outside firms.

[quote=csmelnix]

but given UAEs ties, history, position on terror and terrorist sponsors, I will take the Chinese and British firms over UAE any day.[/quote]

"Position on terror and terrorist sponsors"? Yes, before 9/11 the UAE recognized the Taliban and there was money laundering there. Then again, the guys we arrested the other day in Ohio weren’t from the UAE…

By all accounts Dubai has been a strong ally in the GWOT since 9/11, which along with Qatar, sets it in a different category than their neighbors in the Gulf. I just can’t see, since nothing of consequence is changing here, how we can accept the guys with nukes pointed at us as port managers, but we reject the UAE because they’re Arab.

This, imho, is a situation where disingenuous and cowardly politicians (and they’re not the same crowd), whose constituents were shocked to hear that ANY foreign companies manage ports here, are playing to ignorance, baseless fear and racism.

Now, if one of them would stand up and say that ports are too sensitive to be managed by ANY private enterprise not US owned, or that significant background checks will be required of any port employee, I’d be willing to listen.

[quote=csmelnix]

Spell out the hypocrisy:

1.  Neocons and GW are all for going into Iraq on outdated, cherry picked, questionable intelligence.  Ok with invading a country with minimal ties to "terr", zero involvement in 9/11, no ties to AL Qada.

2.  Iraq reasons behind the invasion become evidently false, yet they all continue to brag about the need to remove the menance and bring democracy to the mideast.

[/quote]

You mean a rehash of your usual talking points, long ago dismissed? Repeat after me, it doesn't matter how it's spun, our intel agencies told Bush Saddam had WMD. THAT was their conclusion and the conclusion of every other major intel group, including the French, on the planet.

[quote=csmelnix]

3.  Here's the hypocrisy:  You can be ok with invading a foreign nation on the info listed above BUT shrug shoulders when it hits your own border. [/quote]

Here's a latin term you should look into "non sequitur"....

[quote=csmelnix]

 UAE at a minimum has similiar circumstances in supporting state sponsor terror regimes/countries as Iraq pre invasion. 

[/quote]

You're delusional. Yes, they did recognize the Taliban, and there was money laundring and the A.Q. Kahn connectrion WAS there (note, he was a rouge Pakistani, I can only guess what you think we should do wqith them)...

HOWEVER, since 9/11 and the "you're with us or the terrorists" they've been strong help.

[quote=csmelnix]

 Have put up many bars to help us fight terror in the area.

[/quote]

Name these "bars"....

[quote=csmelnix]

You are OK with this nation running port operations in our homeland?

[/quote]

If they really did "run port operations", and didn't simply schedule the loading and unloading of ships with the USCG and DHS watching, along with thousands of US longshoreman, I just might.

[quote=csmelnix]

  Would you be ok with Iran or Syria running them or how about Iraq under Hussein?  After all, they're only Arab nations too and we don't want to be rascists here. 

[/quote]

If you're really comparing the UAE to Saddam's Iraq or Syria you're just to buried in hysteria to bother with.

[quote=skeedaddy]Didn't the UAE refuse to release banking records for bin Laden after 9/11? [/quote]

Did they? Tell me more.

[quote=skeedaddy]
Wasn't an attempt to take out bin Laden by Clinton abandoned because a Prince from the UAE on a hunting trip with bin Laden?

[/quote]

IFIRC it was a member of the Saudi Royal family.

[quote=skeedaddy]
(bin Laden was considered our public enemy #1 even back then) Weren't two of the 9/11 hijackers actually from the UAE? [/quote]

And Richard Reid was from the UK, and, omg, THEY RUN PORTS HERE NOW!!!!!!!!

[quote=skeedaddy]
I mean come on, don't you agree we should feel a little uncomfortable with the situation? [/quote]

The problem with your logic is the change of ownership between the UK company and the UAE company changes nothing about how the ports are run or the security there.

Do you really want to tell the entire Arab world to get bent?

The choice here isn't between a UAE gang coming in and sealing of the port from US security or having Capt. America run the port. It's between having one group own the company or another.

I hate to surrender my bulldog title, but you'll all have to continue this without me. Duty (and a G&T) calls elsewhere.

BTW, csmelnix, are you really the fed-up conservative you tell us you are (despite the constant recitation of Democrat talking points), and if so, is it just by chance that some guy at the lefty “In These Times” forum is using your screen name? Also, just out of law school? <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

My apologies in advance if it’s a coincidence.

I hate to surrender my bulldog title, but you'll all have to continue this without me. Duty (and a G&T) calls elsewhere.

I gave up wasting my time on these guys.  It is like trying to reason with the cat.   And I have a single malt scotch waiting for me.

MB.

I don't recall in these times and the screen name saying anything about law school.  So you can tell good arab nations from bad ones.  I love your Richard Reid too - BTW was he Muslim or not?  Hmmmm!

Go back correspondence school bozo....

I am also a avid fan of Michael Savage and listen religiously to G Gordon Liddy on my Sirrius radio - what does that make me?

I was very disturbed by this whole issue, but the more I read the FACTS about Dubai’s support of our efforts(including hosting an air force base and turning over AQ suspects to the US and Pakistan) I feel a little more comfortable about the deal.

It wouldn’t hurt for us to have good allies in the Arab world, if that is possible.

Still-it is a little unsettling.  Worries me that it could make us more vulnerable.

[quote=csmelnix] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

MB.

I don't recall in these times and the screen name saying anything about law school. 

[/quote]

I think this is what they cal a "non-denial denial".  Look, I couldn’t care less if you’re a regular contributor to the “In These Times” loony left forums. It simply calls into question your “I’m a disgusted conservative” line. It’s a line often used by the usual critics who think that repeating the usual Democrat talking points, all very shop-worn, sound better with a patina of respectability by way of a false pedigree from the right. It also frees them from the messy business of having to defend anything at all, much less the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, the Michael Moore/George Soros/ Cindy Sheenhan debacle that is the modern Democrat party.

BTW, a simply Google search turn of a “law school newbie” using the same screen name on other forums.

[quote=csmelnix]  

So you can tell good arab nations from bad ones. 

[/quote]

No, they’re all bad ones.  Real sophisticated view of the world you have there…

[quote=csmelnix]  

I love your Richard Reid too - BTW was he Muslim or not?  Hmmmm!

[/quote]

I see, the fact he was a <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />UK citizen means nothing, the fact that he was a Muslim means everything.

Well, in that case, knowing that the UK company that currently fills the role that DP would has a strict “we hire no Muslims” policy makes me feel better. What’s that? They have no such policy? So you mean every foreign company that manages ports in the US could, in theory, already have “terr” guys working there?

So we’re back to square one, this deal changes nothing…

[quote=csmelnix]  

Go back correspondence school bozo....

[/quote]

That’s an interesting quote from someone who claims to understand the PD for AD officers. It’s almost as if you didn’t know that not everyone who applies to take CGSOC via correspondence before their YG goes to the board for selection is allowed to; that there’s (or at least was) a residency period to the correspondence course and that taking the course that way allows you a better chance of attending an equivalent school with another branch of the military, say the Navy or Marine CGSC.

I guess you didn’t learn it all in those four years….

Look, I’m not going to waste any more time with this political stuff, especially with people who pretend to be what they aren’t and/or who are simply consumed with US-loathing and moonbat conspiracy theories.

I find it especially funny, but an indication of how much of a watse of time this all is, when people who always respond to every event with the knee-jerk, well rehearsed, Democrat talking points engage in the “toe the line” nonsense with those who differ with them…

X wife or husband theory...

You get married and everything is supposed to be wonderful. Well 2, 5, 10 or 20 years later you hate one another. You wish it never happened and your only goal is to destroy the other party.

Sounds a lot like many of our relationships with Bin Laden, Saddam, Afganistan and others. I always look at history this way when I hear people say we supported this or that leader.

Find myself supporting Bush on 90% of positions. For sure I like his "with or against" & "hunt down till the end of earth" mindset. Also he does not move from a stated position. Something that every military member can respect.

As for the opposition (Dean, Gore, Boxer, Kerry, Reid, Carter, Kennedy, Moveon.org and others) they do nothing move then smear, obstruct and attack. To this day many of these left minded liberals say nothing more then Social Security is okay, be sensative to terrorists, US troops torture and tax the wealthy making over 100k.

Who in their right mind would want these people in power? Please tell me one position as a party they support?

CS - Savage is so funny and good.

Mike - Wish I took my loan money and invested.

Mike,

You're right that didn't come across properly.  I absolutely am the same on that but I also believe that my comments there are pretty much identical to here.  What I was denying however is the just out of law school or what ever law school comment you had; that was actually somebody else by the IRR Soldier screen name if I recall.

Also, the correspondence piece, my point is you didn't attend so all the comments about leading to residency was not applicable to you because you were forced out during the downsizing due to REMF performance. 

[quote=csmelnix] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You're right that didn't come across properly.  I absolutely am the same on that but I also believe that my comments there are pretty much identical to here. 

[/quote]

Yeah, all the open talk here about what Democrats should do next to advance their righteous agenda against Chimpy McBush*tler and all. No, wait, here you're a Republican and a disgusted conservative, there (on the forum of that wack-job leftist website) you're a rabid Democrat partisan.

Yeah, "pretty much identical"....

[quote=csmelnix]What I was denying however is the just out of law school or what ever law school comment you had; that was actually somebody else by the IRR Soldier screen name if I recall. [/quote]

I don't know where the IRR soldier screen name comes in, but there's a guy with the same screen name elsewhere calling himself a "law school newbie" and asking about law firms in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Atlanta. If that's not you, fine.

[quote=csmelnix]Also, the correspondence piece, my point is you didn't attend so all the comments about leading to residency was not applicable to you because you were forced out during the downsizing due to REMF performance.  [/quote]

As usual, wrong on both counts.

1) CGSC correspondence didn't "lead to residency", there was a resident component to it. What competition of it allowed me to do was compete for a rare slot to a sister service senior staff college.

 2) I was not "forced out" and my performance was anything but "REMF". (btw, that's a surprising misuse of the term "REMF", Rear Echelon Mother F$%^&* I would expect someone who actually was an officer would know better).

I commanded early, I was selected to attend another branch’s OAC, I was sent to grad school on the Army’s dime, I was selected to an assignment with the Sate Department and from there attached to a ally’s military. I was the top block guy, the one way above you on that pyramid on the little box at the bottom of your OER. Now, I might not have been Audie Murphy, but my service record, since you forced me to detail it, stacks up well to yours (which remains as much in defilade as your CRD), pal.

Now, you can have the last, desperate and wildly inaccurate word, as usual.

MB,

You implied I was in law school in your first comment about this, I am not in law school but will tell you I am considering it to pursue some estate planning and tax work.  Kind of relates to what I do:

[quote=csmelnix]

  He preaches about the need to data mine on all citizens and "suspected" terrorists, the need we had to remove Saddam so that the mushroom cloud doesn't hit our soil and he's determined to see these ports handed over to a country who's ties to terror are suspect at best, a country that doesn't recognize Israel, that believes the Taliban is the legitimate government of Afghanistan....Uh!!!!!!!!!!  Are we or aren't we fighting a war on terror?  Line up locksteppers, another example of hypocritical ideology at play!

[/quote]

for the love of god, do you even know anything about the UAE much less Dubai which isn't even a country) aside from what you hear on FOX?

just read the rest of your posts. apparently you don't.

read up on Dubai's economy and how it was built, the role they played during the gulf war and today and come up with a better argument as to why they shouldn't be overlooking our ports because "TWO of the guys were from UAE"

Your statements are baseless and nothing but a bunch of profiling racist BS.

Hey CS is slowing moving to the right side. Just the libs and media can lead us all astray.

anabuhabkuss:

My foundation for the argument isn't 2 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE.  My point is simple, this country is suspect at best when it comes to a fight on terror.  Their support in the first Gulf War and how they built their economy has no bearing on the argument.  Simply, as a nation they have facilitated terrorist funding and direct ties with terror groups.  In many respects, their history in this regard is fairly close to what Syria has done.  One could argue that Syria who has also "closed" funding loopholes, handed bathists and Al Qada terrorists over to the US and Iraq, etc. has changed similarly to what the UAE has too.  The UAE has some internal issues still in terms of closing funding to terror groups.  At the end of the day, the main issue I have whether it's the UAE or any other Arab nation that has historical ties to terror running the port operations is their access to security operations there.  It doesn't take national level support of terror to infiltrate and blow the security measures.  It takes a single person with bad intentions that may have some ties to inside people that can also help facilitate getting that person into the port and do some damage.  I agree that nothing prevents a British owned company, Chinese owned company or maybe even a US owned company from having this happen.  But I find it difficult for anybody to reasonably argue that the means to do it are the same between a British, US, Chinese owned firm v an Arab owned.  Call me racists if you will, but I don't believe political correctness has room here for our security at home. 

If the CIA, FBI, Congress, Executive and HLS can all agree that they have security in place to overcome that issue, hey, have fun knock out the deal... but that has yet to occur and to blindly move forward until this is done is flat out stupid.  Don't preach to me we fight over there so we don't have to here when this process is glossed over by our President.

7God,

Come on brother I am already there; there's really not a lot of "left" in me or never has been.  I just like to think if you disagree with somebody on the right, doesn't make you a person on the left, right?

[quote=csmelnix]

One could argue that Syria who has also "closed" funding loopholes, handed bathists and Al Qada terrorists over to the US and Iraq, etc. has changed similarly to what the UAE has too. 

[/quote]

When the conversation drifts so far from reality as to compare;<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

1)      <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Syria, a nation hostile to the US, run by a Bathist dictator, who facilitates the entry of terrorists into Iraq, has created hell on Earth in Lebanon and attacked Israel

2)      To the UAE, which has hosted US forces, allows US Customs to inspect shipping leaving their ports bound for the US and is home to an international city the likes of Dubai ,

you know you’re wasting time continuing it.

Mike,

Syria did more for the US in the first Gulf War than the UAE did and coordinated less w/ AL Qada than the UAE ever did as well.  Point is well taken though I will certainly agree with you there.  Again though, I just wouldn't be willing to sell our soul's to anybody in that region at this point.  Our good "friends" the Saudi's have certainly done some extraordinary things to help fight the war v terror as have many others, yes to include the UAE in that region.  I just am not real excited about the deal whether it's the UAE, China, Indonesia or whomever.  You can slam my example but you still can't logically solve the underlying issue of making it easier to infiltrate our ports as a result of this deal.  If, the collective body of intelligence and gov't officials review it feel comfortable, then so be it; as of yet, this still is not the case.

"If, the collective body of intelligence and gov't officials review it feel comfortable, then so be it; as of yet, this still is not the case."

That already happened when the buyout was reviewed. That's when, among other people, the 4 Star CHairman, JCS, approved.

BTW, it's funny how some things just pop up when you need them... 

"If Americans can’t learn the difference between Dubai and Damascus, we don’t stand a snowball’s chance in the desert of defeating Islamic terrorism."

http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2006/02/donat_dump_on_d.h tml#

More from the above website;

The UAE has been on our side from the beginning. We've been using their ports and airfields since the 1980s. They fought alongside us during Desert Storm, and sent troops to Afghanistan for Enduring Freedom. During Iraqi Freedom, they sent troops to Kuwait as part of the Peninsular Defense Force.

Is any of that true of Syria?

Uh yes, actually, Syria provided tremendous support in the form of military soldiers and equipment in Desert Storm; actually don't recall UAE doing so in any sizeable form given they had a standing army of about 60k back then. 

Regardless, Mike, I was using Syria as example where they too have handed over terrorists, apparently closed down certain avenues to fund "al qada" etc.  Granted, I by no means believe they are on equal footing with the UAE in terms of relations to us.  Frankly, I don't really believe any national relations matter in terms of having an arab nation running port ops.  I know that sounds racists (or is), I know it is bias etc.. but to make such a decision because an arab nation supports our fight on terror just shouldn't be the only factor.  Not saying that it is entirely here either, simply that there are absolute security issues that need to be addressed and make sure that it is properly reviewed.  You know, I would feel the same if this was Clinton, Gore, Bush, Reagan whoever.  Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have helped us tremendously in this war too, but God, I would be real uncomfortable having any of their national firms operating our ports.  It's the make up of the extremists coming from the middle east not the national politics of the nation at the heart of it.  Extremists don't operate in a nation state per se, and it just happens that extremists we are fighting tend to be .....arab.  And it is just an easier deal for them to infiltrate a like company v another type.  Again, I know how this sounds but it is what it is in my mind.

In terms of having it already reviewed… look that just isn’t known yet.  All we are getting is the administration take on this and their track record of being upfront and thorough just doesn’t hold water these days.  If and when this thing is properly reviewed by sources outside of the president’s control (like Congress) and beyond the partisan bickering it appears that the terms of security have been addressed then great but it just is a bit troublesome that the president simply overlooked the idea that it should have been reviewed by Congress before moving ahead with it.  He seems to forget that we actually have 3 branches of government sometimes.

[quote=csmelnix]In terms of having it already reviewed... look that just isn't known yet.  [/quote]

Actually, we do.  It was reviewed under a law passed by Congress. The orgainization, called CFIUS, conducted and completed the review before what John McCain calls "hysteria" broke out.

CFIUS member agencies are: The Departments of Treasury (Chair), State, Defense, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, as well as the National Security Council, National Economic Council, United States Trade Representative, Office of Management and Budget, Council of Economic Advisors, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

No less an expert than the 4 Star Marine General serving as the Chairman, JCS, reviewed and approved. Now, I can take your word on the impact of the deal, noting the inaccuracies you've already put forth, and other luminaries like Chuck Shumer, or I can trust the general, John McCain and the heads of the organizations listed above.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=csmelnix]

Uh yes, actually, Syria provided tremendous support in the form of military soldiers and equipment in Desert Storm; actually don't recall UAE doing so in any sizeable form given they had a standing army of about 60k back then. 

[/quote]

Uh, can you detail, as was done above about UAE support, what <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Syria did (troops provided, US posting rights and fly over permission provided, etc?)? And would you seriously still put Syria and the UAE in the same category?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Syria sent their 9th Armored Division and the 3rd special forces regiment against Iraq during Desert Storm.  UAE sent in a small contingent of a motorized infantry (maybe battalion size max) as part of TF Omar along with other members of the GCC.  During the war, SEAL, DELTA and SAS teams worked in and out of the border with Syria into Iraq as part of the Scud hunt.  As for air fly over etc. same deal; as part of the anti-scud mission, coalition aircraft were provided access to Syrian airspace.

Having said that, I think I already answered the second part of your question - Syria and UAE in the same category...my point is support for our war on terror can not be the only parameter used to determine deals like this one; Syria was certainly an ally during Desert Storm but I wouldn't reward them in '91 with a port deal; Pakistan is a great ally right now fighting terror, I don't want any of their companies running our ports as a result. 
One last comment since you asked me for proof; you may want to check into our long lasting relationship with UAE prior to the Gulf War...I don't believe we had any particular relationships prior to that with like you mentioned; I don't believe we had any docking and troop presence in UAE until that war broke out.  I could be wrong, but show me where?

Mike,

Also on your second point... I'm not saying the review was not done all I am saying is we are only getting the word of the administration that all is good and that it was done...the crux of the issue is that; the president at times believes his word is all that matters and refusing to provide info showing that security concerns were reviewed, mitigated, signed off on or what have you is what caused the 'hysteria.'  If he would have provided this stuff upfront instead of coming across like he's trying to slam it down everyone's throat, you would have seen the typical partisan crap.  But we didn't this time because of the point I just made, that's why both sides in Congress called the president out.  Hey if it was done and all is ok, then once the great members in Congress see that, it should become a non-issue for them; of course, we know that there will be some who still won't like it; based on merits or on politics.  But that will become pretty obvious.

For example:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday that more information had made him more comfortable with a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage terminals at major U.S. seaports.

Last week Frist asked the Bush administration to put the deal on hold, saying it needed a more thorough review. Over the weekend, the White House and the company, Dubai Ports World, agreed to a new, 45-day security review of the contract, which closes this week.

"As I've gotten more information, I have a greater comfort level" with the Bush administration's decision granting approval of the deal, Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said.

[quote=csmelnix]

For example:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday that more information had made him more comfortable with a deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage terminals at major U.S. seaports.

Last week Frist asked the Bush administration to put the deal on hold, saying it needed a more thorough review. Over the weekend, the White House and the company, Dubai Ports World, agreed to a new, 45-day security review of the contract, which closes this week.

"As I've gotten more information, I have a greater comfort level" with the Bush administration's decision granting approval of the deal, Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said.

[/quote]

This is the crux of the issue.  This is not an issue of racism, fear mongering blah, blah, blah.  It's about using a little extra caution to look into the scope of the issues surrounding this and to ask some quesions. 

Given the nature of our national security, I doubt anyone could disagree with using a little extra caution.  What's there to disagree with about the idea of being careful?

I agree with csmelnix that a lot of Bush sympathizers here appear (key word) to be "toe to the line" (if I understand the meaning of that phrase correctly).

Whether the port deal is kosher or not, I think Bush looks awful by so stubbornly threatening his "veto" powers.  He wasn't even aware of this deal until the media ran with it.  It really seems (whether true or not)to identify a contradiction in his attitude towards the war on terror.

[quote=csmelnix]

Mike,

Also on your second point... I'm not saying the review was not done...

[/quote]

Then what did you mean by this?;

"If the CIA, FBI, Congress, Executive and HLS can all agree that they have security in place to overcome that issue, hey, have fun knock out the deal... but that has yet to occur.."

Sure looks better plain to me that you're saying the review didn't take place.

[quote=csmelnix]

...all I am saying is we are only getting the word of the administration that all is good and that it was done...

[/quote]

Given the law that governs how such a review is done, just what would you expect? Congress passed the law, the Treas Dept acted IAW the law, all agencies approved. Here's the T's press release on it;

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4071.htm

Each of the CFIUS 12 members (departments and agencies) conducts its own internal analysis. In this case, the Departments of Transportation and Energy were also brought in to the CFIUS review to widen the scope and to add the expertise of those agencies reviewing the transaction.

On November 2, well before DP World and P&O filed with Treasury, CFIUS requested an intelligence assessment of the foreign acquirer. A little more than 30 days later -- still well before the companies formally filed with CFIUS or the review began -- the intelligence community provided CFIUS with a threat assessment regarding whether the foreign acquirer -- DPW – has the intention or capability to threaten U.S. national security.

On December 6, the companies held another pre-filing briefing for all CFIUS agencies.

On December 16, the companies officially filed their formal notice with CFIUS, requesting a review. The 30-day formal review began on December 17. During that 30-day review period, DHS, which is the CFIUS agency with specific expertise on port security, negotiated an assurances letter with the companies. DHS also consulted with all other CFIUS members before the assurances letter was finalized on January 6.

On January 17, roughly 90 days after the parties to the transaction first approached CFIUS about the transaction and roughly 75 days after a thorough investigation of the transaction had begun, all CFIUS members agreed that this particular transaction should be allowed to proceed, pending any other regulatory hurdles before the companies.

Like McCain said, this issue was reviewed long before the hysteria broke out.

[quote=csmelnix]

"...the crux of the issue is that; the president at times believes his word is all that matters..."

[/quote]

No, that's what the critics, most of whom haven't the slightest idea what the law says the process is, want the issue to be.

[quote=csmelnix]

If he would have provided this stuff upfront instead of coming across like he's trying to slam it down everyone's throat, you would have seen the typical partisan crap.

[/quote]

See above, you're simply 180 degrees out from the truth. There was no “slamming”, and the Whitehouse wasn’t even directly involved with the decision.

[quote=csmelnix] But we didn't this time because of the point I just made, that's why both sides in Congress called the president out.

[/quote]

Hardly. What caused some to "call the president out" was a combination of demagogues like Schumer and gutless wonders on the GOP side who put a wet finger into the wind and found it would be easier to loudly question the deal than to explain to constituents that many ports are already managed by foreign companies and that the deal wasn’t “Arabs buying the ports” as has been so often said. There was a tidal wave of misinformation, which continues to this day, and some cockroaches, worried about the next election, wanted to hurry out in front of opinion polls.

[quote=csmelnix]

"As I've gotten more information, I have a greater comfort level" with the Bush administration's decision granting approval of the deal, Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said.

[/quote]

The information Frist says he just got was available all along. This is nothing more than politicians looking towards the next election not wanting to be on the wrong side of lopsided, ill-informed public opinion polls.

[quote=dude]

Given the nature of our national security, I doubt anyone could disagree with using a little extra caution.  What's there to disagree with about the idea of being careful?

[/quote]

It's more than "being careful". The people who first reviewed this, IAW with the law, were "being careful". I suggest you listen closer to the loudest critics, the people like Schumer, already rushing to pass legislation to undo this before a SECOND review is even started. You also need to listen to the disninformation they're spreading about "Arabs taking over the ports". The White House has already agreed to a SECOND review.

[quote=dude]

I agree with csmelnix that a lot of Bush sympathizers here appear (key word) to be "toe to the line" (if I understand the meaning of that phrase correctly).

[/quote]

And Bush critics appear to be in a constant state of, as McCain said, hysterics.

[quote=dude]Whether the port deal is kosher or not, I think Bush looks awful by so stubbornly threatening his "veto" powers. 

[/quote]

What president has EVER said to Congress he'd surrender some power of the presidency?

[quote=dude]

  It really seems (whether true or not)to identify a contradiction in his attitude towards the war on terror.

[/quote]

Only to the ill-informed who don't know what the deal really is, how Democrats have lied about what it is (speaking of which, when did Democrats come to favor racial profiling? Want to talk contradiction?) and how it was long ago reviewed and approved.

Democrats and republicans are both guilty of contradictions.  I'm not too crazy about either party, but it's what we have to work with I guess. 

I used to enjoy politics, but now it just makes my head hurt. 

[quote=csmelnix]

Syria sent their 9th Armored Division and the 3rd special forces regiment against Iraq during Desert Storm.  UAE sent in a small contingent of a motorized infantry [/quote]

FWIW, tiny UAE lost more troops (6) than Syria (3) did.

FRIST is a moron. Love how he was able to determine Schivo from a TV. He is the John Kerry of the republicans.

Mike,

This is why you are a moron in my eyes.  You gloss over responding to any of my questions with worthless dribble.  So UAE lost more soldiers than Syria... wasn't your question on what I could prove about Syria supporting our efforts in the first Gulf War?  Funny how you always come back with crap when you get proved wrong.

Second, on my comments with the FBI, CIA etc.. read on what I said, none of the information was out there...you cite the law where it's convenient.  Why didn't you cite the part about information not being made public; so NO Congress never saw that information...just like the 'ol argument that they saw the same intel that Bush did.  The administration keeps this junk to themselves then they are shocked when they are rejected. 

Hey I am still waiting on that 1980's info where the US and the UAE were such buddy buddy nations that we had our ships in their ports and troops in their land like today?  After all, you did say they have always been friends of ours.

Some more parts of the CFIUS provision:

Information provided by companies contemplating a transaction subject to Exon-Florio is held confidential and is not made public, except in the case of an administrative or judicial action or proceeding. Nothing in section 721 shall be construed to prevent disclosure to either House of Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the Congress.

The Exon-Florio statute established a 30-day review following receipt of a notification. For those transactions for which an extended 45-day review (or "investigation") is completed, a report must be provided to the President, who must by law announce the final decision within 15 days. In total, the process can not exceed 90 days. The statute requires the President to inform Congress of his determination of whether or not to take action under section 721

It is there in bold that is the crux...it was not done other than by the president stating the deal itself was.  Congress was not a party until after the fact nor was information made available to them until after as well. 
MB, would also like to thank you again for proving our TOE the Line belief in calling on the Republicans who dared disagree with YOU and the Pres. as gutless and reelection focused.  They are actually liberal don't you think?

[quote=csmelnix]

It is there in bold that is the crux...it was not done other than by the president stating the deal itself was.

[/quote]

Wrong, as usual. It was the Treasury Department under the law written by the Congress and they announced their decision in January. The White House didn't even have a hand in it.

You should try to keep up, it's been in all the papers.

[quote=csmelnix]

  Congress was not a party until after the fact ..

[/quote]

IAW the law the Congress wrote. They're not part of the decision process. Its seems that NOW the complaint is that the administration followed the law...

[quote=csmelnix]...nor was information made available to them until after as well. 

[/quote]

BZZZZZZ, wrong, but thanks for playing. See McCain's comments about hysteria. The information was public.

[quote=csmelnix] 
MB, would also like to thank you again for proving our TOE the Line belief in calling on the Republicans who dared disagree with YOU and the Pres. as gutless and reelection focused. 

[/quote]

And thank you again for being the "disgusted republican" that shouts the Democrat talking points, line by line, from the rooftops.

[quote=csmelnix] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Mike,

This is why you are a moron in my eyes. 

[/quote]

And this sort of childish name calling when you're caught out is why I couldn’t care less what you think. First you claim a review wasn’t made, then you claim you never said it.

 [quote=csmelnix]

 You gloss over responding to any of my questions with worthless dribble. 

[/quote]

Your “questions” about the security of the deal and the review process were answered, and they were answered by people involved in the detailed process. I gave you a link, I suggest you read it. No less than the CJCS has reviewed this and you pretend you have some insight to share on the subject that escaped his review.

You continue with your laughable “<?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Syria = the UEA” line in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[quote=csmelnix]

 So UAE lost more soldiers than Syria... wasn't your question on what I could prove about Syria supporting our efforts in the first Gulf War?  Funny how you always come back with crap when you get proved wrong.

[/quote]

I gave you evidence of UAE support in first Gulf War, you attempted to minimize the UAE’s contribution. What’s even funnier is your attempt to portray the two countries as being similar today despite the ongoing government support by Syria of terrorism in Lebanon and Iraq. It’s just bizarre beyond words. Just another symptom of BDS.

[quote=csmelnix]

Second, on my comments with the FBI, CIA etc.. read on what I said, none of the information was out there...

[/quote]

You mean you didn’t know it. That’s not the same thing as “not out there”. The Treasury Department released its decision in January. McCain calls it “hysterics” and he’s right.

[quote=csmelnix]

Hey I am still waiting on that 1980's info where the US and the UAE were such buddy buddy nations that we had our ships in their ports and troops in their land like today?  After all, you did say they have always been friends of ours.

[/quote]

When did I say anything about the 1980s, and when did I say “always”? I’ve always said since 9/11.

I would really hate to argue with eiter one of you.  Just shake hands and walk away.

[quote=frumhere]I would really hate to argue with eiter one of you.  Just shake hands and walk away.[/quote]

Good point, I could save time and hear everything he'd say by reading a press release from Chuckie Schumer  

Less politics and more business, I say 

More from the above website;

The UAE has been on our side from the beginning. We've been using their ports and airfields since the 1980s. They fought alongside us during Desert Storm, and sent troops to Afghanistan for Enduring Freedom. During Iraqi Freedom, they sent troops to Kuwait as part of the Peninsular Defense Force.

[quote=mikebutler222]

More from the above website;

The UAE has been on our side from the beginning. We've been using their ports and airfields since the 1980s. They fought alongside us during Desert Storm, and sent troops to Afghanistan for Enduring Freedom. During Iraqi Freedom, they sent troops to Kuwait as part of the Peninsular Defense Force.

Is any of that true of Syria?

[/quote]

As the post clearly says, it's from a website, they're not my words. I even gave you the link to follow up. BTW, your assertions about Syria went without any such link or supporting evidence.

Now, back to work

Mccain hysteria statement:   Pretty obvious when you read his 2 statements that NO - the treasury department's announcement on the deal was not public; but held private as the CFIUS law allows.  And also that Congress did not have information in January.  How can you argue that considering the freakn president didn't know about it until a week before it was made public - around Feb 14th?  In your eyes now Mccain's right and promoted, but boy he was one of the gutless Republican's on another thread when he disagreed with your view on how the Iraq war has been prosecuted...TOE THE LINE > it's ok to disagree with somebody's point of view and they can still be a good Republican or Democrat.  But then again, you are the one who knows better about everything and everyone so who are we to question anything you say.

· Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing about the proposed transfer of terminal operations from the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World. It is my hope that over the next 45 days, Congress and the public will keep an open mind while learning the facts of the transaction and not succumb to the hysteria that has been promoted by some.

· A lot has been said and written in the past week about this transaction, but thus far I have found nothing that leads me to believe that it would negatively impact our nation’s port security.

A link to a blog with input from opinionated people is your proof. Uh!

A link to my info - just go to the library of Congress or DOD site and search about facts on the Gulf War, it spells it out pretty well.

It will also explain how we didn't have the type of arrangement you hinted at with regards to port and troop presence there since the 80's - factual inaccuracies THAT YOU stated while contesting mine.

[quote=csmelnix]

A link to a blog with input from opinionated people is your proof. Uh!

A link to my info - just go to the library of Congress or DOD site and search about facts on the Gulf War, it spells it out pretty well.

It will also explain how we didn't have the type of arrangement you hinted at with regards to port and troop presence there since the 80's - factual inaccuracies THAT YOU stated while contesting mine.

[/quote]

Let's see.. I provide a link to the website....make it clear in my post... you provide nothing.... you complain.... yep, that sums you up well.....

This is the last time I'm doing your homewrok for you;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/uae.htm

The United Arab Emirates [UAE] has provided valuable support to the United States and coalition operations in the region, allowing the deployment of aircraft and the use of its airspace. This includes facilities for an aerial refueling unit that supports Operation Southern Watch as part of UN sanctions against Iraq, and liberty privileges for US service members at the port of Jebel Ali.

Intensive use has been made of commercial ports, including about 200 calls a year at the Jebel Ali port in the United Arab Emirates. Other important ports [Mina] in the UAE are Abu Dhabi, Al Fujayrah, Khawr Fakkan, Mina Khalid, Mina Rashid, Mina Saqr, and Mina Zayid. The Fujairah to Jebel Ali land link is the Navy’s logistics pipeline to the Gulf should the Strait of Hormuz be closed. Cargo unloaded at Al Fujairah, on the Gulf of Oman, can be subsequently transported via highway to destinations on the Arabian Gulf and hence bypass the need for transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States has enjoyed friendly relations with the UAE since 1971. Private commercial ties, especially in petroleum, have developed into friendly government-to-government ties which include security assistance. The breadth, depth, and quality of U.S.-UAE relations increased dramatically as a result of the U.S.-led coalition's campaign to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. The United States was the third country to establish formal diplomatic relations with the UAE and has had an ambassador resident in the UAE since 1974.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/centcom-map1 _2002.htm

Take a look at the above map....note all the facilties in Syria...

And while the UAE has been assisting (evidence above), Syria has been....

http://globalsecurity.insightful.com/jsp/docQuery.jsp?docId= 82656&sid=-1&txt=syria